Delhi High Court
Manoj Raturi vs The State & Ors. on 27 January, 2015
Author: Sunil Gaur
Bench: Sunil Gaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: January 27, 2015
+ CRL.M.C. 309/2015 & Crl. M.A.Nos.1197-98/2015
MANOJ RATURI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Gaurav Vashisht, Advocate
versus
THE STATE & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Parvin Bhati, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent
No.1-State
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL) In proceedings under the Protection of Women Domestic Violence Act, 2005, vide order of 30th October, 2014, petitioner has been called upon to pay interim maintenance of `4,000/- per month to respondent- wife and her child.
At the hearing, challenge to the impugned order is on the ground that the income of petitioner was earlier at `6,000/- per month and at present, petitioner is unemployed and respondent No.2-wife is earning and so, grant of interim maintenance to respondents No. 2 & 3 is unjustified.
Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned order as well as trial Crl.M.C.No.309/2015 Page 1 court's order of 26th November, 2013, I find that the case of respondent No.2 is that petitioner-husband is working as Administrative Manager and is earning `25,000/- per month whereas case of petitioner is that he is earning `6,000/- per month only and therefore, grant of interim maintenance to respondents 2 & 3 is unjustified, as petitioner is unemployed now.
Petitioner is stated to be a graduate who is an able bodied person and his income is to be assessed as per Minimum Wages Act, which in the instant case would come to more than `8,000/- per month. In the facts and circumstances of this case, grant of interim maintenance of `4,000/- per month to respondents No. 2 & 3 is well justified.
Finding no palpable error in the impugned order, this petition and applications are dismissed.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
JANUARY 27, 2015
r
Crl.M.C.No.309/2015 Page 2